APPENDIX
I CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
FINAL REPORT – JANUARY 2021 CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT REPORT PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HIGHWAY 35/115 INTERCHANGE WP 4174-15-00
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE ASSESSMENT REPORT
PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND CLASS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT HIGHWAY 35/115 INTERCHANGE WP 4174-15-00
ONTARIO MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
FINAL
PROJECT NO.: 17M-01712-01 DATE: JANUARY 2021
WSP
WSP.COM
SIGNATURES
PREPARED BY
Chelsey Tyers, BES, MCIP, RPP Cultural Heritage Specialist
REVIEWED BY
Joel Konrad, Ph.D. Ontario Heritage Lead and Cultural Heritage Specialist
This report was prepared by WSP for the account of ONTARIO MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION, in accordance with the professional services agreement. The disclosure of any information contained in this report is the sole responsibility of the intended recipient. The material in it reflects WSP’s best judgement in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, are the responsibility of such third parties. WSP accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. This limitations statement is considered part of this report. The original of the technology-based document sent herewith has been authenticated and will be retained by WSP for a minimum of ten years. Since the file transmitted is now out of WSP’s control and its integrity can no longer be ensured, no guarantee may be given with regards to any modifications made to this document.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
WSP was contracted by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to complete a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report (CHRAR) as part of the Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the Highway (Hwy) 35/115 Interchange, in the Municipality of Clarington. A CHRAR is required for the environmental assessment process to identify existing and potential cultural heritage resources, review the background history of the project area, complete a site visit to confirm existing conditions, provide a preliminary impact assessment to conserve cultural heritage resources, identify mitigation and/or monitoring for potential impacts, and to determine whether additional heritage reporting is required. The results of the background historical research and a review of a secondary source material identified the study area’s land use history dating back to the mid- nineteenth century. The field review confirmed mid-nineteenth century cultural heritage resources that reflect the agricultural settlement of the area. A total of eight cultural heritage landscapes and one built heritage resource were identified in the study area. Based on the results of this assessment, four cultural heritage resources will be directly impacted by the preferred alternative for the Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the Highway (Hwy) 35/115 Interchange. However, there may be indirect impacts to two of the resources given the proximity of construction activities. As such, the recommendations are as follows: 1 Staging and construction activities should be appropriately located and/or planned to avoid impacts to the identified cultural heritage resources. 2 CHL 1 should be subject to a documentation report prior to any construction activities and perferably prior to detail design. The documentation report should provide a comprehensive history of the resource and photographic documentation. 3 A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report should be completed for CHL 5, 6 and 7, and BHR 1 prior to construction and preferably prior to detail design to determine whether they possess cultural heritage value or interest. If a property is found to have cultural heritage value or interest, a Heritage Impact Assessment should be completed in the detail design phase prior to construction to determine appropriate alternatives or mitigation measures. 4 If future work requires an expansion to the study area or change in the preferred alternative, the additional area or change should be studied by a qualified heritage professional to identify any future potential cultural heritage resources and any impact to them. 5 This report should be submitted to Heritage Planner at the Municipality of Clarington.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page ii
PROJECT PERSONNEL
CLIENT
Client Contact Glenn Higgins MTO Project Manager
WSP
Project Manager Joel Konrad, PhD, CAHP
Cultural Heritage Lead – Ontario
Cultural Heritage Specialist Chesley Tyers, BES, MCIP, RPP Cultural Heritage Specialist
Report Preparation Chelsey Tyers
GIS and Mapping Andrew Turner, HBA Cultural Heritage Geomatics Specialist
Report Review Joel Konrad
Administrative Support Lyn Pedersen Administrative Assistant – Document Control
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page iii
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Study Purpose and Objectives ...... 1 1.2 Project Description and Study area ...... 1 TABLE OF 2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY CONTEXT ...... 3 2.1 Environmental Assessment Act ...... 3 CONTENTS 2.2 Provincial Policy Statement ...... 3 2.3 Ontario Heritage Act ...... 4 2.3.1 Ontario Regulation 9/06 ...... 4 2.3.2 Ontario Regulation 10/06 ...... 5 2.4 MTO Environmental Reference for Highway Design ...... 5 2.5 MTO Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes ...... 5 2.6 Ontario Heritage Bridge Guideline for Provincially-Owned Bridges ...... 6 2.7 Durham Region Official Plan ...... 6 2.8 Municipality of Clarington Official Plan ...... 6
3 METHODOLOGY ...... 9 3.1 Background History ...... 9 3.2 Consultation ...... 9 3.3 Field Assessment ...... 9 3.4 Identification of Cultural Heritage Value or Interest ...... 10 3.5 Screening for Potential Impacts ...... 10
4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ...... 11 4.1 Indigenous Context ...... 11 4.2 Post-Contact Period ...... 12 4.2.1 Eurocanadian Context ...... 12 4.2.2 Roadway Transportation History in Ontario ...... 13 4.2.3 Bridge Construction History in Ontario ...... 14 4.2.4 Review of Historical Mapping and Aerial Photography ...... 15
5 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 16 5.1.1 Highway 35 ...... 16 5.1.2 Highway 115 ...... 17 5.1.3 Boundary Road ...... 17
5.1.4 Concession Road 10 ...... 18 5.1.5 Old Highway 35 and Beaucage Road ...... 19 5.1.6 Wilcox Road ...... 20 5.1.7 Skelding Road ...... 20
6 IDENTIFIED CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES22
7 SCREENING FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...... 23 7.1 Description of Proposed Undertaking ...... 23 7.2 Potential Impacts ...... 23
8 CONCLUSIONS ...... 27
9 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 28
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 29
11 APPENDICES ...... 31
A FIGURES...... 33 B CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORMS ...... 41 C PREFERRED OPTION ...... 51
TABLES
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES AND BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCES IN THE STUDY AREA ...... 22 TABLE 2: POTENTIAL IMPACT TO CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES ...... 23
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page vi
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 STUDY PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
WSP was contracted by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) to complete a Cultural Heritage Resource Assessment Report (CHRAR) as part of the Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the Highway (Hwy) 35/115 Interchange, in the Municipality of Clarington. A CHRAR is required for the environmental assessment process to identify existing and potential cultural heritage resources, review the background history of the project area, complete a site visit to confirm existing conditions, provide a preliminary impact assessment to conserve cultural heritage resources, identify mitigation and/or monitoring for potential impacts, and to determine whether additional heritage reporting is required. To meet these objectives, the report will: • Provide an introduction to the study, including the purpose and methodology used to undertake the work. • Review background studies to complete a summary history of the study area using local histories, historical mapping and aerial photographs. This work will trace the evolution of the study area and aid in identification of existing and potential cultural heritage resources. • Contact Municipality of Clarington heritage planning staff regarding heritage recognitions and identification of listed and/or designated heritage properties within and adjacent to the study area. • Conduct a survey to confirm the existing conditions of the study area and review survey findings. This process will aid in the identification of built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes that may be impacted by the undertaking. This task will produce photographs of the built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes within and adjacent to the study area for the purposes of preparing the report. • Undertake a screening of alternatives to produce preliminary assessment of impacts of heritage properties within and adjacent to the study area. • Identify mitigation/monitoring issues and provide general mitigation recommendations. • Provide recommendations for further heritage reporting as appropriate. • This work will be conducted in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act (2005), the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), the Environmental Assessment Act (1990), and the Region of Durham and Municipality of Clarington’s Official Plans.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STUDY AREA
Hwy 35 north of the Hwy 35/115 interchange is currently a two-lane rural undivided highway. This highway carries local, agricultural, commuter, tourist and commercial traffic and is an important regional road. Hwy 115 east of this interchange, and the combined Hwy 35/115 south of the interchange, are currently four-lane divided highways. 407 ETR intersects Highway 35/115 approximately 4km south of the current Hwy 35/115 interchange. In 2009, MTO obtained environmental clearance for a Transportation Environmental Study Report (TESR) to widen Hwy 35 to four-lanes, not including the Hwy 35/115 Interchange. This expansion plan has been designated in accordance with the Public Transportation Highway Improvement Act (PTHIA) as a future four-lane, controlled access highway.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 1
The study requirements are to prepare the Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for the improvements to Hwy 35/115 interchange, tie Hwy 35/115 into approved Hwy 35 improvements, rehabilitation/widening/replacement of bridges in the study area, addressing local access needs, drainage improvements and other related improvements in the study area. The Highway 35/115 interchange was removed from the Highway 35 four-laning study as it was taken under the umbrella of the 407 ETR east extension study, as the interchange was potential terminus for the 407 ETR. However, the ultimate preferred route of the 407 ETR east extension intersected Highway 35/115 approximately 4 km south of the Highway 35/115 interchange. Therefore, the interchange was left without the EA-approved improvements required to accommodate the four-laning of Highway 35 to the north. At the time of writing this report, the construction of the 407 ETR link has been completed. The study area limits for the Hwy 35/115 Class EA include (Figure 1, Appendix A): • Hwy 35, from approximately 300 m north of Concession Road 10 southerly to the Hwy 35/115 interchange (approximately 1.0 km) • Hwy 115, from Hwy 35/115 interchange easterly to the south of Boundary Road (approximately 1.8 km) • Hwy 35/115, from the Hwy 35/115 interchange south to Skelding Road (approximately 1.4 km) The study area also includes areas surrounding the Highway 35/115 interchange as new municipal service roads will also be considered to help address local access needs.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 2
2 LEGISLATION AND POLICY CONTEXT
This report reviews cultural heritage resources in and adjacent to the primary study area to ensure that the requirements under the Environmental Assessment Act (1990) are satisfied. This section outlines the various legislative frameworks and policies relevant to the report.
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT
The purpose of the Environmental Assessment Act (1990) is “the betterment of the people of the whole or any part of Ontario by providing for the protection, conservation and wise management, in Ontario, of the environment” (Environmental Assessment Act 2009, Part I-Section 2). The Environmental Assessment Act (1990) defines environment broadly to include the built and cultural environment and outlines a planning and decision-making process to ensure that potential environmental effects are considered before a project begins. This legislation applies to provincial ministries and agencies, municipalities, and other public bodies. Certain “classes” of projects can follow streamlined EA processes, such as the MTO Class EA. The MTO Class EA Document proposes that cultural heritage resources of high and moderate significance should be avoided during generation of the preliminary design alternatives. Where impact cannot be avoided, mitigation measures should be proposed in accordance with provincial standards and guidelines.
2.2 PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT
The Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2020) outlines provincial “policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development” (Part I: Preamble PPS 2020). The intent is to provide for appropriate development that protects resources of public interest, public health and safety, and the quality of the natural and built environment. The PPS 2020 identifies the conservation of significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes as a provincial interest in Section 2.6.1. Relevant definitions from the PPS 2020 include: Built heritage resources: a building, structure, monument, installation or any manufactured remnant that contributes to a property’s cultural heritage value or interest as identified by a community, including an Aboriginal community. Built heritage resources are generally located on property that has been designated under Parts IV or V of the Ontario Heritage Act, or included on local, provincial and/or federal registers. Cultural heritage landscapes: defined geographical area that may have been modified by human activity and is identified as having cultural heritage value or interest by a community, including an Aboriginal community. The area may involve features such as structures, spaces, archaeological sites or natural elements that are valued together for their interrelationship, meaning or association. Examples may include, but are not limited to, heritage conservation districts designated under the Ontario Heritage Act; villages, parks, gardens, battlefields, main streets and neighbourhoods, cemeteries, trail ways, viewsheds, natural areas and industrial complexes of heritage significance; and areas recognized by federal or international designation authorities (e.g. a National Historic Site or District designation, or a UNESCO World Heritage Site). Conserved: means the identification, protection, management and use of built heritage resources, cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological resources in a manner that ensures their cultural heritage value or interest is retained under the Ontario Heritage Act. This may be achieved by the implementation of recommendations set out in a conservation plan, archaeological assessment, and/or heritage impact assessment. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches can be included in these plans and assessments.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 3
2.3 ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT
The Ontario Heritage Act (2005) gives municipalities and the provincial government powers to preserve the heritage of Ontario, with a primary focus on protecting heritage properties and archaeological sites. The Ontario Heritage Act (2005) grants the authority to municipalities and to the province to identify and designate properties of heritage significance, provide standards and guidelines for the preservation of heritage properties and enhance protection of heritage conservation districts, marine heritage sites and archaeological resources. Properties can be designated individually (Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act [2005]) or as part of a larger group of properties, known as a Heritage Conservation District (Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act [2005]). Designation helps to ensure the conservation of these important places. Designation offers protection for the properties under Sections 33, 34 and 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act (2005), prohibiting the owner of a designated property from altering, demolishing or removing a building or structure on the property unless the owner applies to the council of the municipality and receives written consent to proceed with the alteration, demolition or removal. In addition to designated properties, the Ontario Heritage Act (2005) allows municipalities to list other properties which are considered to have Cultural Heritage Value or Interest on their Register. Under Part IV, Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (2005), municipalities must maintain a Register of properties situated in the municipality that are of cultural heritage value or interest. Section 27 (1.1) states that the register shall be kept by the clerk and that it must list all designated properties (Part IV and V). Under Section 27 (1.2), the Register may include property that has not been designated, but that council believes to be of cultural heritage value or interest. “Listed” properties, although recognized as having cultural heritage value or interest, are not protected under the Ontario Heritage Act (2005) to the same extent as designated properties, but are acknowledged under Section 2 of the PPS 2014 under the Planning Act. An owner of a ‘listed’ heritage property must provide the municipality with 60 days’ notice of their intention to demolish a building or structure on the property. In the City of Toronto, 'Listed' properties are those for which City Council has adopted a recommendation to be included on the Register as a non-designated property. This makes 'Listed' properties in the City of Toronto subject to Section 27 of the Ontario Heritage Act (2005). The Ontario Heritage Act (2005) also allows for the designation of provincial heritage properties (PHP). Part III.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act (2005) enables the preparation of standards and guidelines that set out the criteria and process for identifying cultural heritage value or interest of PHPs (Part II of the Ontario Heritage Act [2005]) and cultural heritage value or interest of provincial heritage properties of provincial significance (PHPPS) (O. Reg. 10/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act [2005]) and to set standards for their protection, maintenance, use, and disposal.
2.3.1 ONTARIO REGULATION 9/06
The criteria for deterimining cultural heritage value or interest is defined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 (O. Reg. 9/06) as follows: 1. The property has design value or physical value because it, i. is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a style, type, expression, material or construction method, ii. displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit, or iii. demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific achievement. 2. The property has historical value or associative value because it, i. has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community,
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 4
ii. yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture, or iii. demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community. 3. The property has contextual value because it, i. is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area, ii. is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings, or iii. is a landmark. O. Reg. 9/06, s. 1 (2).
2.3.2 ONTARIO REGULATION 10/06
The criteria for determining CHVI of provincial significance are defined in O. Reg. 10/06 under the OHA. 1. A property may be designated under Section 34.5 of the act if it meets one or more of the following criteria for determining whether it is of CHVI of provincial significance:
i. The property represents or demonstrates a theme or pattern in Ontario’s history; ii. The Property yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of Ontario’s history; iii. The property demonstrates an uncommon, rare or unique aspect of Ontario’s cultural heritage; iv. The property is of aesthetic, visual or contextual importance to the province; v. The property demonstrates a high degree of excellence or creative, technical or scientific achievement at a provincial level in a given period; vi. The property has a strong or special association with the entire province or with a community that is found in more than one part of the province. The association exists for historic, social, or cultural reasons or because of traditional use; vii. The property has a strong or special association with the life or work of a person, group or organization of importance to the province or with an event of importance to the province; or viii. The property is located in unorganized territory and the Minister determines that there is a provincial interest in the protection of the property. O. Reg. 10/06, s.
2.4 MTO ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCE FOR HIGHWAY DESIGN
Section 3.7 of the Environmental Reference for Highway Design (2013) addresses the requirements specific for undertaking built heritage and cultural heritage landscape assessment for MTO Highway projects. It requires the identification and assessment of cultural heritage resources, their mitigation (as required), technical reports and the qualifications of the cultural heritage specialist.
2.5 MTO ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDE FOR BUILT HERITAGE AND CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES
In addition to the Environmental Reference for Highway Design (2013), the Environmental Guide for Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2007) provides more detailed guidance for the identification and assessment of
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 5
built heritage and cultural heritage landscapes and appropriate mitigating measures for implementation in the design and construction processes in transportation projects. The Guide requires that a CHRAR should include the following sections: Executive summary; Introduction (purpose of assignment); A study area location plan; Summary of the history of the study area; A description of the affected resources and their heritage interest or value; A description of potential impacts and sensitivities; Recommendation of preservation/mitigation strategies during subsequent stages; Historical mapping, aerial photographs and graphic materials as needed to illustrate changes in the study area; and, Cultural heritage resource forms.
2.6 ONTARIO HERITAGE BRIDGE GUIDELINE FOR PROVINCIALLY-OWNED BRIDGES
Given the study area includes several bridges and culverts in the study area, the Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines for Provincially-Owned Bridges (2008 - Interim) was relevant to the CHRAR. Produced by the MTO and the Ministry of Tourism Culture and Sport (MHSTCI), the guidelines identify how to assess provincially owned bridges including specific criteria for determining cultural heritage value or interest. Provincially owned bridges that are determined to possess cultural heritage value or interest are added to the Ontario Bridge List and due regard must be provided to the heritage attribute and associated landscape during the Environmental Assessment Process.
2.7 DURHAM REGION OFFICIAL PLAN
The Regional Municipality of Durham Official Plan was approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing on November 24, 1993. Policies relevant to this CHRAR include: 2.1.3 To preserve and foster the attributes of communities and the historic and cultural heritage of the Region. 2.2.11 The conservation, protection and/or enhancement of Durham's built and cultural heritage resources is encouraged.
2.8 MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON OFFICIAL PLAN
The Municipality of Clarington Official Plan was adopted by the Council of the Municipality of Clarington on January 29, 1996 and was approved the by Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham on October 31, 1996 with modifications. Policies relevant to this CHRAR include: 8.2 Objectives 8.2.1 To encourage the conservation, protection, enhancement and adaptive reuse of cultural heritage resources including: • Structures, sites and streetscapes of cultural heritage value or interest; • Significant archaeological and historic resources; • Significant landscapes, vistas and ridge-lines; and
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 6
• Landmarks and focal points. 8.2.2 To incorporate cultural heritage resources into community design and development. 8.2.3 To support community efforts and events that celebrate the culture and heritage of the Municipality. 8.3 Policies 8.3.1 In achieving its cultural heritage objectives, the Municipality shall: a) Promote public awareness and appreciation of cultural heritage resources; b) Encourage the private sector to support the conservation of cultural heritage resources; c) Support and promote the Clarington Museums and Archives; d) Restore, rehabilitate, enhance and maintain Municipally-owned cultural heritage resources; e) Encourage the reuse of architectural features; f) Document the features of cultural heritage resources in the event that demolition is inevitable; g) Consider in co-operation with the development industry, the preservation of heritage buildings by incorporating the buildings into new developments; h) Enhance the streetscape components in cultural heritage resource areas, such as signage, street furniture, and lighting; and i) Consider the interests of Indigenous communities in conserving cultural heritage and archaeological resources. 8.3.4 Where a cultural heritage resource is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act or is recognized on the cultural heritage resources list, the Municipality shall: a) Allow alterations, renovations, additions or repairs provided the proposed changes are compatible and consistent with the building and the surrounding area in terms of building materials, colour, height, scale and design including windows, doors and roof lines; b) Discourage the demolition or the inappropriate alteration of a cultural heritage resource; c) Require redevelopment and infill buildings in existing built up areas to be compatible and consistent with the surrounding buildings and streetscape in terms of building materials, height, width, scale, colour, setback and design including windows, doors and roof lines; d) Require new development in previously non built up areas to conserve and enhance the cultural heritage attributes of the resource by providing an appropriate transition with regard to the scale, massing and character; e) Prepare urban design guidelines governing the alteration, development or redevelopment of districts or neighbourhoods; and f) Consider the conservation of cultural heritage resources in the placement or modification to infrastructure. 8.3.5 Wherever possible, built heritage resources should be retained for the original use and in their original location. Where the original uses cannot be maintained, the adaptive reuse of built heritage resources will be supported. If no other alternative exists for maintaining structures in their original location, consideration may be given to the relocation of the structure. 8.3.6 Should a heritage resource be demolished, the dismantling, salvage and reuse of materials is encouraged. 8.3.7 Development on or adjacent to a cultural heritage resource identified on the Municipal Register may be permitted where the proposed development has been evaluated through a Heritage Impact Assessment and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 7
8.3.8 Without diminishing the importance of cultural heritage resources that are not identified on the Municipal Register, the Municipality will keep a Cultural Heritage Resource List to identify resources that have cultural value and interest. Development on lands identified in the Cultural Heritage Resource List may be subject to a Heritage Impact Assessment as determined by the Municipality.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 8
3 METHODOLOGY
3.1 BACKGROUND HISTORY
This report includes background research that summarizes the history of the study area. In addition to textual sources, historical mapping and aerial photography was consulted to identify the presence of structures/building, settlement patterns and other potential heritage resources in advance of a field assessment.
3.2 CONSULTATION
Cultural heritage resources already recognized by the municipality, the Ontario Heritage Trust, provincially and federally were identified through review of the following: • The inventory of Ontario Heritage Trust owned properties; • The Ontario Heritage Trust’s Ontario Heritage Plaque Guide, an online, searchable database of Ontario Heritage Plaques; • Ontario’s Historical Plaques website; • The Ontario Heritage Act Register maintained by the Ontario Heritage Trust; • Inventory of known cemeteries/burial sites in the Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services and the Ontario Genealogical Society’s online databases; • Parks Canada’s Historic Places website: available online, the searchable register provides information on historic places recognized at the local, provincial/territorial and national levels; • Parks Canada’s Directory of Federal Heritage Designations, a searchable on-line database that identifies National Historic Sites, National Historic Events, National Historic People, Heritage Railway Stations, Federal Heritage Buildings, and Heritage Lighthouses; • Canadian Heritage River System. The Canadian Heritage River System is a national river conservation program that promotes, protects and enhances the best examples of Canada’s river heritage; and, • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites. The following municipality specific resources were consulted in addition to contacting the Municipality of Clarington’s Heritage Planner: • The Municipality of Clarington Municipal Register and Heritage Inventory https://clarington.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=9ea89a9922804c2684bdbdcc1ef8f38 3 For the purposes of this study, any property previously identified by the council of a municipality, municipal staff, and/or provincial or federal agencies as having cultural heritage value or interest was determined to be a cultural heritage resource.
3.3 FIELD ASSESSMENT
Field Assessment for this report included a survey of the study area from the publicly accessible right-of-way to confirm or identify existing and/or potential cultural heritage resources. Where identified, potential cultural heritage resources were photographed, mapped and physical characteristics visible from the right of way were described.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 9
The purpose of the field assessment is primarily to identify built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes that are more than 40 years old. The use of the 40-year threshold is generally acceptable as a guiding principle when conducting a preliminary identification of cultural heritage resources (Ministry of Transportation, 2007). Identification of a resource older than 40 years does not necessarily mean it will have cultural heritage value. Similarly, if a resource is younger than 40 years old it does not preclude this resource from having cultural heritage value, however it does provide a systematic means of identifying properties that have a higher likelihood of retaining cultural heritage value.
3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE VALUE OR INTEREST
Properties identified during field review were screened using criteria outlined in O. Reg. 9/06 for determining cultural heritage value or interest. The criteria in O. Reg. 9/06 were established to identify properties with sufficient cultural heritage value or interest to warrant designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. It is considered best practice to employ O. Reg. 9/06 to evaluate properties that are not recognized heritage properties to determine if they have cultural heritage value or interest. These criteria include design or physical value, historical or associative value and contextual value.
It should be noted that this report does not provide a comprehensive evaluation of a property under O. Reg. 9/06 and does not satisfy the requirement for a CHER.
3.5 SCREENING FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS
To establish potential impacts, identified cultural heritage resources were considered against a range of possible impacts as outlined in the MHSTCI’s Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2010) Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries (MHSTCI) Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2010) which includes: • Destruction of any, or part of any, significant heritage attributes or features; • Alteration (which means a change in any manner and includes restoration, renovation repair or disturbance); • Shadows created that alter the appearance of a heritage attribute or change the exposure or visibility of a natural feature or plantings, such as a garden; • Isolation of a heritage attribute from its surrounding environment, context or a significant relationship; • Direct or indirect obstruction of significant views or vistas within, from, or to a built or natural feature; • A change in land use such as rezoning a battlefield from open space to residential use, allowing new development or site alteration to fill in the formerly open spaces; • Land disturbances such as a change in grade, or alterations to drainage pattern, or excavation, etc. Where any cultural heritage resources may be impacted by direct or indirect impacts, appropriate mitigation measures will be developed. This may require completing a Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report (CHER) to identify the property’s cultural heritage value or interest heritage attributes if the property’s heritage attributes have yet to be defined. For properties that have been subject to a CHER or their cultural heritage value or interest has otherwise been defined, a heritage impact assessment may be required to determine appropriate mitigation measures.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 10
4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
This section provides a brief overview of the history of the project area. The intent of this section is to provide a context for the cultural heritage resources in the project area.
4.1 INDIGENOUS CONTEXT
Paleoindian period populations were the first to occupy what is now southern Ontario, moving into the region following the retreat of the Laurentide Ice Sheet approximately 11,000 years before present (BP). The first Paleoindian period populations to occupy southern Ontario are referred to by archaeologists as Early Paleoindians (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Early Paleoindian period groups are identified by their distinctive projectile point morphologies, exhibiting long grooves, or ‘flutes’, that likely functioned as a hafting mechanism (method of attaching the point to a wooden stick). These Early Paleoindian group projectile morphologies include Gainey (ca. 10,900 BP), Barnes (ca. 10,700), and Crowfield (ca. 10,500) (Ellis and Deller, 1990). By approximately 10,400 BP, Paleoindian projectile points transitioned to various unfluted varieties such as Holcombe (ca. 10,300 BP), Hi Lo (ca. 10,100 BP), and Unstemmed and Stemmed Lanceolate (ca. 10,400 to 9,500 BP). These morphologies were utilized by Late Paleoindian period groups (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Both Early and Late Paleoindian period populations were highly mobile, participating in the hunting of large game animals. Paleoindian period sites often functioned as small campsites where stone tool production and maintenance occurred (Ellis and Deller, 1990). Climatic warming, approximately 8,000 BP, was accompanied by the arrival of the deciduous forest in southern Ontario. With this shift in flora came new faunal resources, resulting in a change in cultural adaptations in the region. This change is reflected in new tool-kits and associated subsistence strategies referred to archaeologically as the Archaic period. The Archaic period in southern Ontario is divided into three phases: the Early Archaic (ca. 10,000 to 8,000 BP), the Middle Archaic (ca. 8,000 to 4,500 BP), and the Late Archaic (ca. 4,500 to 2,800 BP) (Ellis et al. 1990). The Archaic period is differentiated from earlier Paleoindian populations by a number of traits such as: 1) an increase in tool stone variation and reliance on local tool stone sources, 2) the emergence of notched and stemmed projectile point morphologies, 3) a reduction in extensively flaked tools, 4) the use of native copper, 5) the use of bone tools for hooks, gorges, and harpoons, 6) an increase in extensive trade networks, and 7) the production of ground stone tools. Also noted is an increase in the recovery of large woodworking tools such as chisels, adzes (a tool similar to an axe with an arched blade, used for cutting or shaping large pieces of wood), and axes (Ellis et al., 1990). The Archaic period is also marked by population growth. Archaeological evidence suggests that by the end of the Middle Archaic period (ca. 4,500 BP) populations were steadily increasing in size (Ellis et al., 1990). Over the course of the Archaic period, populations began to rely on more localized hunting and gathering territories. By the end of the Archaic period, populations were utilizing more encampments that are seasonal. From spring to fall, the archaeological record shows populations were shifting their settlement patterns on a regular, seasonal basis. From spring to fall, settlements would exploit lakeshore/riverine locations where a broad-based subsistence strategy could be employed, while the late fall and winter months would be spent at interior site where deer hunting was likely a primary focus with some wild edibles likely being collected (Ellis et al. 1990:114). This steady increase in population size and adoption of a more localized seasonal subsistence strategy eventually evolved into what is termed the Woodland period. The beginning of the Woodland period is identified by archaeologists by the emergence of ceramic technology for the manufacture of pottery. Similar to the Archaic period, the Woodland period is separated into three primary timeframes: the Early Woodland (approximately 2,800 to 2,000 BP), the Middle Woodland (approximately 2,000 to 1,200 BP), and the Late Woodland (approximately 1,200 to 350 BP) (Spence et al., 1990; Fox, 1990).
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 11
The Early Woodland period is represented in southern Ontario by two different cultural complexes: the Meadowood Complex (ca. 2,900 to 2,500 BP), and the Middlesex Complex (ca. 2,500 to 2,000 BP). During this period, the life ways of Early Woodland populations differed little from that of the Late Archaic with hunting and gathering representing the primary subsistence strategies. The pottery of this period is characterized by its relatively crude construction and lack of decorations. These early ceramics exhibit cord impressions, likely resulting from the techniques used during manufacture (Spence et al., 1990). The Middle Woodland period is differentiated from the Early Woodland period by changes in lithic tool morphologies (e.g. projectile points, expedient tools) and the increased elaboration of ceramic vessels (Spence et al., 1990). In southern Ontario, the Middle Woodland is observed in three different cultural complexes: the Point Peninsula Complex to the north and northeast of Lake Ontario, the Couture Complex near Lake St. Claire, and the Saugeen Complex throughout the remainder of southern Ontario. These groups can be identified by their use of either dentate or pseudo scalloped ceramic decorations. It is by the end of the Middle Woodland period that archaeological evidence begins to suggest the rudimentary use of maize (corn) horticulture (Warrick, 2000). The Point Peninsula tradition is characterized by Vinette II ceramics, small camp sites and seasonal village sites, and a clear influence from both northern Ontario and Hopewell cultures (Warrick, 2000). The adoption and expansion of maize horticulture during the Late Woodland period allowed for an increase in population size, density, and complexity among Late Woodland populations. As a result, a shift in subsistence and settlement patterns occurred, with the adoption of a more sedentary village life and reliance on maize horticulture, with beans, squash, and tobacco also being grown. Nearing the end of the Late Woodland period (approximately 600 BP) villages reached their maximum size. During this period, increased warfare resulted in the development of larger villages with extensive palisades. Later in the Late Woodland period, the pre-contact Neutral tradition is defined by large villages (up to 5 hectares in size) with large populations and extensive farming of crops. Additional site types, including hamlets, cabins, camps and cemeteries are represented in the Late Woodland period as well (Munson and Jamieson, 2013). Early contact with European settlers at the end of the Late Woodland period resulted in extensive change to the traditional lifestyles of most populations inhabiting southern Ontario. Trade with the Europeans lead to dependency on European goods and incited conflict between the Indigenous communities in southern Ontario (Warrick, 2000).
4.2 POST-CONTACT PERIOD
4.2.1 EUROCANADIAN CONTEXT
The study area is located within the Municipality of Clarington in the Regional Municipality of Durham. The Municipality of Clarington was created in 1974 following the approval of the Regional Municipality of Durham Act. Clarington was formed by the amalgamation of the former Town of Bowmanville, the Village of Newcastle and the Townships of Clarke and Darlington. Most of the study area is located in the former Clarke Township, but the of the area immediately north of Boundary Road is in Manvers Township. CLARKE TOWNSHIP Clarke Township was laid out in the 1790s and was designated Township 6. However, it was soon renamed to Clarke and records show that the name Clarke had been used as early as February 1791 in instructions issued by Surveyor General of Quebec to Deputy Surveyor John Collins (Fraser, 1906:cxvii, 389). The first survey was completed in 1793 and settlement began in 1795 and 1796 (Armstrong, 1985: 142). In 1805, Solicitor General D’arcy Boulton noted that the township along the lakeshore was “thickly inhabited” and that with the Township’s rich soils, it “will in time be a valuable township” (Boulton, 1805:76).
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 12
Smith’s 1846 Canada Gazeteer reported that 20,011 hectares (49,449 acres) were claimed, 7689 hectares (19,000 acres) of which were under cultivation (Smith, 1846: 34). The villages of Newcastle and Newton were situated in the south of the township, on the Eastern Road, the village of Bond Head on lake shore; and a small settlement called Orono about 8 km north of Newcastle. The township had two grist mills and thirteen saw mills, and was known for the production of “excellent wheat” (Smith, 1846: 34). In 1842, the Township’s population was 2,832 and it increased to 6,575 by 1861 (Sutherland & Co., 1865).
MANVERS TOWNSHIP Manvers Township was located immediately north of Clarke Township was established officially in 1816 and named in honour of Charles Pierrepont, 1st Earl of Manvers (Carr, 1967: 6). Samuel S. Wilmot completed the first township survey in 1816-1817 (Carr, 1967: 6). The early settlers were nearly all farmers from different counties in Ireland, earlier families included the McNaughtons, McKees, McDonalds, Gillingers and Hawleys. A large part of the township was also granted to Bishop Mountain, the first bishop of Quebec who had jurisdiction over both Lower and Upper Canada. Smith’s 1846 Canada Gazeteer reported that 8612 acres (21,281 acres) were claimed within the Township, of which 1287 hectares (3180 acres) were under cultivation (Smith, 1846: 110). Smith noted the land in the township had mixed qualities and that timber included hardwood intermixed with pine (Smith, 1846: 110). In 1842 the population numbered 697, but by 1861 the population had increased to 4,205 (Sutherland & Co, 1865). The first records of Township proceedings date back to 1850, when the first by-law was passed nominating William Graham as a tax collector. In 1850, the Township Clerk was Robert Touchburn, the reeve was William Hunter and there were three constables, Thomas Summerville, Joseph Proert and Aaron Anderson. Early settlement areas in Manvers Township included the communities of Ballyduff and Pontypool which are both located north of the study area. Settlers congregated around the Ballyduff area around 1820 and named the area after the Irish town of the same name. By the 1850s, Ballyduff had a general store, a tavern, three hotels, a chair factory, two churches and a log schoolhouse. Located a few kilometres south of Ballyduff, Pontypool was named in the 1850s after Pontypool, Wales. By the 1870s, Pontypool had a number of saw mills, churches, a hotel and a general store and it experienced some growth after the Canadian Pacific Railway began operating a line from Toronto through the district to Peterborough in 1884.
4.2.2 ROADWAY TRANSPORTATION HISTORY IN ONTARIO
The earliest transportation routes in Ontario consisted of the many waterways and paths utilized by Canada’s Indigenous populations. These same routes were utilized by early European explorers during the fur trade as they were the most effective way to traverse the tree covered land (MTO, 2016). It wasn’t until the growth of Euro- Canadian settlement that the need for cleared paths suitable for wagon travel led to the development of roadways. The earliest roadways consisted of little more than dirt pathways cleared of stumps and boulders to a width that would allow for the passage of wagons and coaches. These roads were often built to varying levels of quality by settlers and quickly became pitted and washed out. The introduction of corduroy roads, consisting of horizontal logs laid along the roadway and covered/chinked with dirt, provided an improvement upon basic dirt roads. They allowed for the construction of roadways over marshy, wet terrain that basic dirt roads could not pass through easily. However, these roads also experienced short periods of use before decaying and becoming impassable (MTO, 2016). In the late 1700’s there were no formal road workers responsible for the construction and maintenance of roadways. Instead, the construction of roads was the responsibility of township citizens and settlers who were required to contribute time in road work every year as statutory labour and overseen by the local ‘Pathmaster’. Techniques for roadway construction improved throughout the 1800’s, with the invention of the plank road (sawed planks of wood laid horizontally perpendicular to the road alignment) in the 1830’s. Similar to the previous corduroy roads, plank roads were prone to decomposition and deterioration (MTO, 2016). The macadam road (using
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 13
various gravel sizes) provided better drainage, compaction, slope control, and longevity, but the initial construction cost posed an issue for many roadworks. The costly repair and maintenance of these early roads meant that in the latter half of the nineteenth century many of Ontario’s roadways were in disrepair. The arrival of the automobile in Ontario during the late 1800’s – early 1900’s, and the advocacy work of the bicycle lobby, resulted in a push for new and improved roadways. The use of cars and bicycles on roadways resulted in the development of improved gravel and macadamized dirt roadways, and the patent of modern tarmac technology in 1901 allowed for improved road conditions and longevity (MTO, 2016). By 1916, roadways had become important enough to warrant the founding of the Department of Public Highways (what would eventually become the MTO). The first half of the 20th century saw a number of developments on Ontario’s roadways, despite the restrictions imposed by the great depression and two world wars. The 1920’s saw the formalization of road systems, the passing of the provincial Highway Traffic Act, and the removal of municipal and regional road tolls. By the 1940’s preliminary construction on numerous sections of 400 series highways were completed. Over the following decades numerous highway expansions were completed and older dirt roads upgraded to improved tarmac. HIGHWAY 115 King’s Highway 115 connects Peterborough to Highway 401. It was opened to traffic in 1954 to provide a shorter connection between Toronto and Peterborough. 27 km long, it reduced the distance between Toronto and Peterborough by 9.5 km (Bevers, 2020). Initially, Highway 401 was not directly connected to Highway 115. Motorists had to connect to Highway 115 via Highway 35. A direct link to Highway 401 was not added until 1960. In 1960s Highway 115 was extended to Newcastle and had a length of 45.9 km. It was further extended in the mid- 1960s north from Highway 28 Junction near Springville to Peterborough. It was routed concurrently with Highway 28 for about 3.2 km though Springville and at Highway 7 it turned east and ran concurrently with Highway 7 for about 4.8 km to the Queensway (the Parkway). In 1970, the mid-1960s extension was essentially removed, as the designation of Highway 115 between the Highway 28 Junction near Springville and Peterborough was removed (Bevers, 2020).
HIGHWAY 35
King’s Highway 35 is a major trunk highway connecting Haliburton County and the City of Kawartha Lakes to Highway 401. Officially, established in 1931, King’s Highway 35 extended north from Fenelon Falls and ended at Rosedale River Bridge along an existing continuous road until the late 1930s and was approximately 25 km in length. A road leading north from Rosedale to Minden was opened by the Department of Northern Development. When the Department of Northern Development and the Department of Highways amalgamated in the late 1930s, the whole route from Rosedale to Hunstville was designated as King’s Highway 35 (Bevers, 2020). By 1940 the Highway was over 232 km long and during the 1950s it was straightened in several areas, including passing Orono, Lindsay, Fenelon Falls, Minden and Dorset (Bevers, 2020). Several sections were also renamed, such as through Fenelon Falls the highway was renamed as Highway 121 and 35A, and through Lindsay as Highway 35B. In the 1980s, Highway 35 and 115 between Highway 401 and Enterprise Hill was converted into a right-in, right-out expressway.
4.2.3 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION HISTORY IN ONTARIO
The history of bridge construction in Ontario coincided roughly with the spread of Euro-Canadian settlers and surveyors and the expansion of Ontario’s road systems (Bradford 2015, MTO 2016). These earliest bridges were rudimentary in construction, utilizing the abundance of large trees available to span waterways and covering the bridge top with a corduroy log cover and dirt flooring. With the decline of suitable large lumber came the introduction of wooden truss bridges. Wooden truss bridges benefitted from the construction knowledge of early settlers, utilizing King and Queen trusses common in barn construction. The wooden truss bridge enjoyed a long lived popularity in southern Ontario, being commonly used until the 1890’s.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 14
Stone arch bridge construction began during the same period as the wooden truss bridges, being used throughout the 1850’s to 1880’s. However, stone bridges were never as common, due largely to the expensive and time consuming nature of quarrying, transporting, and crafting the raw material (Bradford 2015, MTO 2016). As such, stone bridges are more common for larger important bridge crossings and wealthier economic centres. With the arrival of the railway came the use of iron in bridge construction. Introduced in the 1850’s, early iron bridges were constructed using cast iron and were brittle. Later development of wrought iron bridges improved on the tensile strength of the material, thus improving its longevity (Bradford 2015, MTO 2016). However, iron’s use in bridge construction was limited to the 1870’s and 1880’s, as the introduction of steel replaced it as the standard bridge material in the 1870s. Numerous bridge technologies were used in the construction of wooden, iron, and steel bridges in the 1800’s. These included the truss (1820’s), suspension (1848), and cantilever (1883). With the reintroduction of concrete as a building material in the twentieth century came a more efficient and effective way to build bridges. Concrete’s maleability meant that the construction of slab and arch bridges could be produced relatively quickly and easily to span the many smaller waterways of Ontario. This resulted in the decline of steel in bridge construction, with concrete soon becoming the dominant material. The introduction of steel reinforcing concrete further improved its versatility, allowing for its use in larger building projects (Bradford 2015, MTO 2016). The result is the increased use of concrete in major roadworks throughout the 1940’s and 1950’s. The most recent innovation to the use of concrete is the development of pre-stressed concrete, which provides better resistance to cracking and failure and can be either cast in place or pre-formed off site. This versatility has resulted in pre-stressed concrete’s domonance in modern bridge construction.
4.2.4 REVIEW OF HISTORICAL MAPPING AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
A review of historical mapping and aerial photography was undertaken to understand the changing landscape and built environment within and adjacent to the study area. To determine the presence of historical features within or adjacent to the study area from the nineteenth and twentieth century, the 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Northumberland and Durham, Canada West (Figure 2) and the 1878 Northumberland and Durham Counties Atlas were reviewed (Figure 3). In addition, the Department of National Defence’s topographic maps from 1930 and 1940 (Figure 4 and 5) and aerial photographs from 1954 and 2019 were reviewed (Figures 6 and 1). These visual sources were used to identify historical features from the twentieth century and to examine the evolution of the study area. While these maps and photographs are not the only visual sources consulted for the purposes of this study, they were determined to provide the best overview of land development in the study area. In the 1860 Tremaine’s Map of the County of Northumberland and Durham, Canada West the study area consists of a predominantly agricultural area, with few building footprints, and a central road that would become Highway 35. In the 1878 Northumberland and Durham Counties Atlas, the study area remains predominantly agricultural, however, some of the lots have been subdivided and the number of building footprints has increased. The study area now also includes a saw mill at the southern end. The topographic mapping from 1930 and 1940 provides greater detail of the topography and use of land in the study area during the 1930s. In the study area, the configuration of Hwy 35 follows the configuration of the central road depicted in the previous maps and appears to be between the current locations of Hwy 35 and Hwy 115. The study area includes open treed areas, with a building footprint along Boundary Road and two building footprints along Hwy 35, south of Boundary Road. A parcel with a cross at the northwest corner of Highway 35 and Boundary Road probably identifies the McCrae’s Cemetery or a previous place of worship. Aerial photographs from 1954 demonstrate the changes in the study area between 1940 and 1954. The configuration of Hwy 35 continues to travel through Pontypool, north of the study area, has shifted west and matches the current configuration within the study area. Additionally, the footprint of Hwy 115 appears through the study area. Surrounding both Hwy 35 and Hwy 115, the study area is dominated by agricultural fields. Modern aerial imagery continues to demonstrate the dominance of agriculture practice in this area.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 15
5 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The study area for the Hwy 35/115 Intersection Preliminary Design and Class EA includes the Hwy 35 right-of-way from approximately 300 m north of Concession Road to the Hwy 35/115 intersection (approximately 1.0 km), Hwy 115 from the Hwy 35/115 interchange to south of Boundary Road (approximately 1.8 km) and Hwy 35/115 from the Hwy 35/115 interchange to Skelding Road (approximately 1.4 km). The study area also includes areas surrounding the Hwy 35/115 interchange as new municipal service roads will also be considered to help address local access needs.
A review of the study area was conducted from the public right-of-way on June 25, 2020 by Chelsey Tyers, Cultural Heritage Specialist, to record the existing conditions of the study area. The field review was preceded by a review of available, current and historical, aerial photographs and maps. These photographs and maps were reviewed for any potential cultural heritage resources that may be extant in the study area. The existing conditions of the study area are described below. Nineteen cultural heritage resources were identified and are presented in Table 1 and mapping of these resources is presented in Figure 7.
5.1.1 HIGHWAY 35
Hwy 35 is a north-south provincial highway and within the study area it has a single lane of traffic in both directions (Image 1-Image 4). The grade of the highway is generally flat, and both sides have gravel shoulders. This portion of the highway is set within gentle rolling hills containing agricultural fields, some of which are lined with trees along the highway. Within the study area Hwy 35 intersects with Boundary Road and Concession Road 10 at grade. At the intersection of Hwy 35 and Hwy 115, Highway 35 crosses above Highway 115 on a prestressed concrete girder bridge.
Image 2: View of dirt path parallel to Hwy 35, Image 1: View of Highway 35 from intersection of looking south Boundary Road, looking southwest
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 16
Image 3: View of Highway 35 crossing over Image 4: View of Highway 35 at Concession Road Highway 115, looking north 10, looking south
5.1.2 HIGHWAY 115
Highway 115 is a north-south provincial highway, however, north of the Hwy 35/115 intersection it is oriented northeast-southwest. The highway contains two lanes of traffic in both directions and is divided by a concrete barrier (Image 5-Image 6). Access to local roads including Skelding Road, Wilcox Road and Old Highway 35 are right-in and right-out access. Properties surrounding the both sides of the highway are dominated by agricultural fields and wooded areas.
Image 5: View of Boundary Road crossing over Image 6: View of Highway 115 near Boundary Highway 115 Road, looking southwest
5.1.3 BOUNDARY ROAD
Located at the north end of the study area Boundary Road runs west-east and has a single lane of traffic in both directions (Image 7-Image 10). The grade of the road is generally flat west of Hwy 35 with some soft rolling hills west of Highway 35 and gravel shoulders line each side. The streetscape is dominated by cultivated agricultural fields and wooded areas, however, there is a grouping of small residential parcels on the north side of Boundary
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 17
Road west of Hwy 35 and a gas station and gravel pit east of Hwy 35. A concrete plant and a gravel pit is also located on the north side of Boundary Road, west of Highway 115.
Image 7: View of Boundary Road at Highway 35 Image 8: View of dwellings on the north side of intersection, looking south Boundary Road west of Highway 35, looking north
Image 9: View of cemetery at the northwest Image 10: View towards concrete plant on corner of Boundary Road and Highway 35, Boundary Road, looking northwest looking north
5.1.4 CONCESSION ROAD 10
Concession Road 10 is a west-east bound road with a single lane of traffic in each direction (Image 11-Image 12). Within the study area the road surface is asphalt paving west of Highway 115 and gravel paving east of Highway 115, with no shoulders along most of the road. Concession Road 10 intersects with Hwy 35, but dead-ends immediately before Hwy 115. The road is dominated by large agricultural fields.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 18
Image 11: View of Concession Road 10, looking Image 12: View of Concession Road 10 at dead- northeast end, looking west
5.1.5 OLD HIGHWAY 35 AND BEAUCAGE ROAD
Old Highway 35, follows the original route of Hwy 35 and connects Hwy 35 and Hwy 115. It is an asphalt paved, north-south road with a single lane of traffic in each direction (Image 13-Image 16). At the north end of Old Highway 35 is a small GO carpool lot. Both sides of the road consist of heavily wooded areas which conceal two dwellings on the west side of Old Highway 35. Beaucage Road is a narrow gravel paved road accessed off of the west side of Old Highway 35. It is also dominated by heavily wooded areas, but at its west end it provides access to a farm property.
Image 13: View of Old Highway 35 near Image 14: View of Old Highway 35 near intersection of Highway 35, looking north intersection of Highway 35, looking south
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 19
Image 15: View looking west down Beaucage Image 16: View of farm property at the west end Road of Beaucage Road
5.1.6 WILCOX ROAD
Wilcox Road is a west-east asphalt road with narrow gravel shoulders located off the east side of Highway 115 (Image 17-Image 18). The topography of the road follows the gentle hills of the natural landscape. The north and south sides of Wilcox Road are dominated by heavily wooded areas and agricultural properties.
Image 17: View looking east down Wilcox Road Image 18: View of dwelling on north side of from Highway 115 Wilcox Road
5.1.7 SKELDING ROAD
Skelding Road is a west-east narrow single lane gravel road accessed off the west side of Highway 115 (Image 19- Image 20). It is dominated by heavily wooded areas and agricultural properties.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 20
Image 19: View of Skelding Road looking west Image 20: View looking east on Skelding Road towards Highway 115
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 21
6 IDENTIFIED CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES
Based on the results of the background research and field review, 9 CHRs were identified within or adjacent to the study area. A detailed inventory of these cultural heritage resources is presented in Appendix B and mapping of these features is in Appendix A, Figure 7. Table 1: Summary of cultural heritage landscapes and built heritage resources in the study area
RESOURCE TYPE ADDRESS/LOCATION RECOGNITION CHL 1 Roadscape Highway 35 Previously identified in Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment (ASI, 2007) CHL 2 Roadscape Boundary Road Previously identified in Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment (ASI, 2007) CHL 3 Cemetery McCrae’s Cemetery Previously identified in Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment (ASI, 2007) CHL 4 Roadscape Concession Road 10 Previously identified in Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment (ASI, 2007) CHL 5 Farm Complex 3730 Concession Road 10 Previously identified in Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment (ASI, 2007) CHL 6 Farm Complex 3783 Concession Road 10 Previously identified in Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment (ASI, 2007) CHL 7 Farm Complex 3828 Concession Road 10 Identified during field review CHL 8 Farm Complex 84 Beaucage Road Identified during field review BHR 1 Farm House? 3790 Wilcox Road Identified during field review
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 22
7 SCREENING FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS
7.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED UNDERTAKING
The Preferred Plan is shown on Appendix C. Works will include improvements to the Highway 35/115 Interchange, widening of Highway 35 to four lanes (to tie into the previously EA-approved four-laning north of the Study Area), construction of new municipal service roads east and west of Highway 35 and the retention and maintenance of the existing Highway 35 Connection Underpass. The improvements will include the following features: Construction of improved Highway 35/115 Interchange ramps; in general, the new ramps will have larger radii than the existing ramps; Widening of the Highway 35 mainline from two to four lanes with a median barrier. The Highway 35 design speed will be increased from 100 km/h to 110 km/h, and the posted speed will be increased from 80 km/h to 90 km/h; Closure of the following local intersections/accesses due to the upgrade of Highway 35 and interchange improvements: — Concession Road 10 at Highway 35; — Old Highway 35 at Highway 35; — Wilcox Road at Highway 35/115; and — Property access from Highway 35, where required for safety and traffic operational needs. Providing new connections to/from Wilcox Road; Constructing two new municipal service roads east and west of Highway 35 to provide local access to Boundary Road (Regional Road 20) from Concession Road 10, Old Highway 35, and Beaucage Road; Relocation of the existing carpool lot at Old Highway 35 to the Highway 115/Boundary Road Interchange; Drainage and stormwater management improvements; Illumination improvements; and Relocation of impacted utilities. It is noted that the improvements will require property acquisition and that the existing Highway 35 Connection Underpass structure will be retained.
7.2 POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Table 2 considers the impacts of the design options on the identified cultural heritage resources, based on the MHSTCI’s Screening for Impacts to Built Heritage and Cultural Heritage Landscapes (2010). Table 2 also provides mitigation strategies. Table 2: Potential impact to cultural heritage resources
RESOURCE ADDRESS/LOCATION DISCUSSION OF IMPACT MITIGATION STRATEGIES
CHL 1 Highway 35 Potential impact. Given the minor degree of the impact,
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 23
RESOURCE ADDRESS/LOCATION DISCUSSION OF IMPACT MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Rationale: The portion of WSP recommends that a Highway 35 north of the Documentation Report be completed study area will be turned preferably prior to detail design for this into a four-lane road as portion of Highway 35 to document the previously subject to the roadscape prior to construction for Planning and Preliminary posterity. Design Study, September 2007. To match this expansion, the portion of Highway 35 within the study area will be also be turned into a four-lane highway which will require a slight realignment and new East- North and North-South ramps connecting to Highway 115. Most of the impact to the Highway 35 landscape was caused by the previous study, the impact caused by the current EA is in relation considered minor.
CHL 2 Boundary Road No impact. N/A Rationale: Two municipal service roads (Proposed Municipal Service Road W-2 and Proposed Municipal Service Road SW E-1) are proposed to be attached to Boundary Road on the west and east sides of Highway 35. As part of the previous Planning and Preliminary Design Study, September 2007, Boundary Road was proposed to be realigned around the intersection of Highway 35. Given that the proposed roads will connect to the reconstructed portion of Boundary Road that was previously considered, no additional impact is anticipated.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 24
RESOURCE ADDRESS/LOCATION DISCUSSION OF IMPACT MITIGATION STRATEGIES
CHL 3 McCrea’s Methodist No Impact. N/A Cemetery Rationale: No additional work is proposed on or adjacent to McCrea’s Methodist Cemetery as part of this EA.
CHL 4 Concession Road 10 Potential indirect impact. Storage and construction staging areas should be located away from the Rationale: Two municipal Concession Road 10 corridor and other service roads (Proposed heritage resources identified in the Municipal Service Road study area. W-2 and Service Road SW E-1) are proposed to have access off of Concession Road 10. Additionally, access to Highway 35 from Concession 10 will be removed on both the west and east sides. The changes will not impact the roadscape directly along Concession Road 10, but the proximity of construction work may have indirect impacts.
CHL 5 3730 Concession Road 10 Potential impact. A CHER is recommended to be completed preferably prior to detail Rationale: The Proposed design to determine whether the Municipal Service Road property has cultural heritage value or W-2 is located on the west interest. If the property has cultural side of the property and heritage value or interest, a Heritage will go directly through Impact Assessment should also be the agricultural field. completed to determine appropriate alternatives or mitigation measures.
CHL 6 3783 Concession Road 10 Potential impact. A CHER is recommended to be completed preferably prior to detail Rationale: The East-North design to determine whether the Ramp between Highway property has cultural heritage value or 35 and Highway 115 and a interest. If the property has cultural storm water management heritage value or interest, a Heritage area will be located at the Impact Assessment should also be southwest corner of the completed to determine appropriate property. Additionally, alternatives or mitigation measures. Highway 35 will be expanded to four lanes and there may be indirect impacts to the subject
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 25
RESOURCE ADDRESS/LOCATION DISCUSSION OF IMPACT MITIGATION STRATEGIES
property as a result of construction staging areas.
CHL 7 3828 Concession Road 10 Potential impact. A CHER is recommended to be completed preferably prior to detail Rationale: The Proposed design to determine whether the Municipal Service Road property has cultural heritage value or SW E-1 is located on the interest. If the property has cultural east side of the property heritage value or interest, a Heritage and will go directly Impact Assessment should also be through an agricultural completed to determine appropriate field. alternatives or mitigation measures.
CHL 8 84 Beaucage Road No impact. N/A Rationale: No work is proposed on or adjacent to this property on Beaucage Road.
BHR 1 3790 Wilcox Road Potential impact. A CHER is recommended to be completed preferably prior to detail Rationale: A new south- design to determine whether the north ramp will be property has cultural heritage value or constructed connecting interest. If the property has cultural Wilcox Road to Highway heritage value or interest, a Heritage 35 and it will require Impact Assessment should also be demolition of the garage completed to determine appropriate and likely the dwelling on alternatives or mitigation measures. the subject property.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 26
8 CONCLUSIONS
The results of the background historical research and a review of the secondary source material, including historic mapping, revealed that the study area consists of lands that have been shaped by the early township settlement and agricultural settlement.
The following provide a summary of the assessment results: - A total of 9 cultural heritage resources were identified within and/or adjacent to the study area for the Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the Highway (Hwy) 35/115 Interchange (8 Cultural Heritage Landscapes and 1 Built Heritage Resource); - Of these, six were previously identified in the Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment (ASI, 2007) and three were identified during field review; and, - The identified cultural heritage resources reflect the early nineteenth century township settlement and agricultural settlement.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 27
9 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the background data collection and assessment of impacts of the study area and proposed preferred alternative for the Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the Highway (Hwy) 35/115 Interchange, it has been determined that there will be potential direct and indirect impacts to potential cultural heritage resources. Based on the results of the evaluation, four cultural heritage resources will be directly impacted by the preferred alternative for the Preliminary Design and Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA) for the Highway (Hwy) 35/115 Interchange. However, there may be indirect impacts to two of the resources given the proximity of construction activities. As such, the recommendations are as follows: 1 Staging and construction activities should be appropriately located and/or planned to avoid impacts to the identified cultural heritage resources. 2 CHL 1 should be subject to a documentation report prior to any construction activities and preferably prior to detail design. 3 A Cultural Heritage Evaluation Report should be completed for CHL 5, 6 and 7, and BHR 1 prior to any construction activities and preferably prior to detail design determine whether they possess cultural heritage value or interest. If a property is found to have cultural heritage value or interest, a Heritage Impact Assessment should be completed to determine appropriate alternatives or mitigation measures. 4 If future work requires an expansion to the study area or change in the preferred alternative, the additional area or change should be studied by a qualified heritage professional to identify any future potential cultural heritage resources and any impact to them. 5 This report should be submitted to Heritage Planner at the Municipality of Clarington.
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 28
10 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archaeological Services Inc. (ASI) 2007 Built Heritage and Cultural Landscape Assessment: Highway 35 Four-Lane Planning and Preliminary Design Study from Highway 115 Northerly to South of Highway 7 and Highway 35/Highway 7A Connection Study, City of Kawartha Lakes, the Municipality of Clarington and the Regional Municipality of Durham, Ontario.
Armstrong, F.H. 1985 Handbook of Upper Canada Chronology. Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press
Bevers, Cameron 2019 History of King’s Highway 9. The King’s Highway. Retrieved from: https://www.thekingshighway.ca/Highway9.htm
Bradford, R. 2015 Keeping Ontario Moving: The History of Roads and Road Building in Ontario. Dundurn. Toronto, Ontario.
Carr, Violet M. 1967 The Rolling Hills. The Manvers Township Council at its Centennial Project. John Deyell Limited/Lindsay.
Ellis, C.J. and D.B. Deller 1990 Paleo-Indians. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 37- 74. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society.
Ellis, C.J., I.T. Kenyon, and M.W. Spence 1990 The Archaic. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65- 124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society.
Fox, W. 1990 The Middle Woodland to Late Woodland Transition. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 171-188. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society.
Fraser, Alexander. 1906 Third Report of the Bureau of Archives for the Province of Ontario 1905. Toronto, Ontario: L.K. Cameron, King’s Printer.
Ministry of Transportation Ontario 2016 The Ministry of Transportation 1916-2016: A History. http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/about/mto-100/
The Odawa. In the Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 65-124. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter OAS No. 5, London: Ontario Archaeological Society
Smith, William Henry 1946 Smith’s Canadian Gazeteer.Toronto, Ontario: H &W Rowsell. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/smithscanadianga00smit
Spence, M.W., R.H. Pihl, and C. Murphy
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 29
1990 Cultural Complexes of the Early and Middle Woodland Periods. In The Archaeology of Southern Ontario to A.D. 1650, Ed C.J. Ellis and N. Ferris, pp. 125-170. Occasional Publication of the London Chapter, OAS No. 5. London: Ontario Archaeology Society.
Surtees, R. J. & Rogers, E.S. (Ed.) 1984 Land Cessions, 1763-1830: Aboriginal Ontario Historical Perspectives on the First Nations (pp.92-121). Toronto, Ontario: Dundurn Press Limited.
Sutherland & Co. (Pub) 1865 Gazeteer and General Business Directory for the United Counties of Northumberland and Durham For 1865-6. Perrytown, Ontario: Woodstock, C.W. Printers.
Warrick, G. 2000 The Precontact Iroquoian Occupation of Southern Ontario. Journal of World Prehistory 14(4):415-456.
Provincial Standards and Resources
Ontario Heritage Tool Kit: http:// www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/Toolkit/toolkit.ht Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries: Heritage Conservation Principle’s for Land Use Planning: http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/info_sheets/info_sheet_landuse_planning.htm Ontario Ministry of Heritage, Sport, Tourism and Cultural Industries: Eight Guiding Principles in the Conservation of Historic Properties: http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/info_sheets/info_sheet_8principles.htm Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Sport: Archaeological Assessments: http://www.mtc.gov.on.ca/en/archaeology/archaeology_assessments.shtml Municipal Heritage Bridges Cultural, Heritage and Archaeological Resources Assessment Checklist (Revised April 11, 2014) Ontario Heritage Act (2005) Ontario Heritage Bridge Guidelines (2008) Reference Guide on Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources (1996) Guidelines for Preparing the Cultural Heritage Resource Component of Environmental Assessments (1992).
National and International Standards and Resources
Canadian Register of Historic Places: http://www.historicplaces.ca/visit-visite/rep-reg_e.aspx Parks Canada Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada: http://www.pc.gc.ca/docs/pc/guide/nldclpc-sgchpc/index_E.asp Parks Canada National Historic Sites of Canada: http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/lhn-nhs/index_e.asp International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS): Appleton Charter: http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/appleton.pdf
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 30
11 APPENDICES
Hwy 35/115 Interchange Preliminary Design and Class EA WSP Project No. 17M-01712-01 January 2021 Ontario Ministry of Transportation Page 31
A FIGURES
Service Layer Credit Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
OAD K R HOO DY SAN
AD RO RY W NDA I U L BO M
O
N
T
R
O
A
D 5
3
Y 5 1 A 1 W Y
H A
G W I H H IG H D 20 ROA AL ION REG
O
D 10 L A D RO N O H SSI CE I CON G H
W
A AD Y O X R O 3 ILC 5 W
H IG B H E W S A T Y
R M 3 O 5 O A & S D 1 P 1 O 5
R
T
R
O
A
D
OAD G R LDIN SKE
TITLE: SCALE: PROJECT NO: DATE: LEGEND 1:20,000 17M-01712-01 OCTOBER 2020 FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION DRAWN BY: CLIENT: Study Area AST MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT: CREDITS: HIGHWAY 35/115 CHRAR LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO 0 500 1,000 m ± Document Path: C:\Users\Andrew.S.Turner\Projects\17M-01712-01\MXD\Heritage\Map 1 Study Area Map.mxd Service Layer Credit
TITLE: SCALE: PROJECT NO: DATE: LEGEND 1:15,505 17M-01712-01 JUNE 2020 FIGURE 2: HISTORIC MAPPING (1861) DRAWN BY: CLIENT: Study Area AST MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT: CREDITS: HIGHWAY 35/115 CHRAR TREMAINE'S MAP OF THE COUNTY OF DURHAM, UPPER CANADA (1861) 0 415 830 m ± Document Path: C:\Users\Andrew.S.Turner\Projects\17M-01712-01\MXD\Heritage\Map 2 Historic 1861.mxd Service Layer Credit
TITLE: SCALE: PROJECT NO: DATE: LEGEND 1:20,000 17M-01712-01 JULY 2020 FIGURE 3: HISTORIC MAPPING (1878) DRAWN BY: CLIENT: Study Area AST MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT: CREDITS: HIGHWAY 35/115 CHRAR TOWNSHIPS OF CLARKE AND MANVERS FROM ILLUSTRATED HISTORICAL ATLAS OF THE COUNTIES OF NORTHUMBERLAND 0 500 1,000 m ± AND DURHAM (H. BELDEN & CO., 1878) Document Path: C:\Users\Andrew.S.Turner\Projects\17M-01712-01\MXD\Heritage\Map 3 Historic 1878.mxd Service Layer Credit
TITLE: SCALE: PROJECT NO: DATE: LEGEND 1:20,000 17M-01712-01 JUNE 2020 FIGURE 4: 1930 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, SCUGOG DRAWN BY: CLIENT: Study Area AST MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT: CREDITS: HIGHWAY 35/115 CHRAR DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE (1930) 0 500 1,000 m ± Document Path: C:\Users\Andrew.S.Turner\Projects\17M-01712-01\MXD\Heritage\Map 4 1930 Scugog.mxd Service Layer Credit
TITLE: SCALE: PROJECT NO: DATE: LEGEND 1:20,000 17M-01712-01 JULY 2020 FIGURE 5: 1940 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, SCUGOG DRAWN BY: CLIENT: Study Area AST MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT: CREDITS: HIGHWAY 35/115 CHRAR DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE (1940) 0 500 1,000 m ± Document Path: C:\Users\Andrew.S.Turner\Projects\17M-01712-01\MXD\Heritage\Map 5 1940 Scugog.mxd Service Layer Credit
AD RO OK HO DY SAN
AD RO RY DA UN BO
5
3
Y 5 A 1 1
W Y H A
G
I W 0 H 2 H AD G RO I AL H ION REG
0 D 1 ROA ON SSI CE 5
N 3
CO
Y
A
W
H
G
I
H
D D
L A RO O X CO 5 IL 1 W 1
&
5 3
Y
A
W B H E G S I
T H
R
O
A
D
TITLE: SCALE: PROJECT NO: DATE: 1:15,000 17M-01712-01 JUNE 2020 LEGEND 6 FIGURE : AERIAL IMAGERY (1954) DRAWN BY: CLIENT: Study Area AST MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT: CREDITS: HIGHWAY 35/115 CHRAR AERIAL IMAGE (1954)[441_783] 0 400 800 m ± Document Path: C:\Users\Andrew.S.Turner\Projects\17M-01712-01\MXD\Heritage\Map 6 1954 Aerial.mxd Service Layer Credit Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
CHL 2
D OA Y R 20 DAR AD UN RO BO AL ION REG CHL 2 CHL 3 CHL 2
CHL 5 CHL 2
CHL 7 20 AD RO NAL GIO RE 5
3
Y 5 CHL 5 A 1 1 W
H Y A
G I W
H H IG H
CHL 4
CHL 4 CHL 4 10 OAD N R CHL 6 SIO CES CON
5
3
Y
A
W
H
G I CHL 1
H
D
CHL 5 L
O D ROA OX ILC CHL 4 W
10 BHR 1 AD RO CHL 4 ION ESS ONC C D H 10 CHL 8 OA AD I O R G R B CHL 4 E ION G H S E A CES S UC W CON T A E A
R B Y
O 3
A 5
D & CHL 6
1
1
5
TITLE: SCALE: PROJECT NO: DATE: LEGEND 1:12,500 17M-01712-01 JUNE 2020 FIGURE 7: CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCES DRAWN BY: CLIENT: Study Area AST MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION
Cultural Heritage Resources: PROJECT: CREDITS: Built Heritage Resource HIGHWAY 35/115 CHRAR Cultural Heritage Landscape LAND INFORMATION ONTARIO 0 335 670 m ± Document Path: C:\Users\Andrew.S.Turner\Projects\17M-01712-01\MXD\Heritage\Map 7 Cultural Heritage Resources_Annotated.mxd
B CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORMS
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORM: CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES (CHL) Cultural Heritage Landscape No.: 1
Address: Highway 35 Municipality: Municipality of Clarington County/R.M.: Regional Municipality of Durham Landscape Category: Rural Streetscape Landscape Features: two paved lanes, soft gravel shoulders, grass ditches, hydro lines on both sides and tree-lined areas
Current Use: Highway View of Highway 35 looking south from Concession Road 10 Integrity: Altered Alterations: There have been slight changes to the alignment of Hwy 35 since it was established originally in 1931. Comments: None. History: Hwy 35 was originally established in 1931 as a provincial highway, but followed already established local routes Association/Themes: - Twentieth century highway construction - Township settlement - Agricultural settlement Landmark: No. Associated BHR/CHL: None.
Statement of Significance: N/A
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORM: CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES (CHL) Cultural Heritage Landscape No.: 2
Address: Boundary Road (aka Regional Road 20) Municipality: Municipality of Clarington County/R.M.: Regional Municipality of Durham Landscape Category: Rural Streetscape Landscape Features: two lanes, paved, narrow gravel shoulders, tree-lined portions, adjacent agricultural fields View of Boundary Road looking west, west of Highway 35 Current Use: Regional Road
Integrity: Good
Alterations: None known. Comments: None. History: Historical rural road Association/Themes: - Township settlement - Agricultural settlement Landmark: No. Associated BHR/CHL: None.
Statement of Significance: N/A
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORM: CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES (CHL) Cultural Heritage Landscape No.: 3
Address: Boundary Road (McCrea’s Methodist Cemetery) Municipality: Municipality of Clarington County/R.M.: Regional Municipality of Durham Landscape Category: Cemetery/ Burial Ground Landscape Features: Stone grave markers randomly placed; brick pillars and gate at entrance
Current Use: Cemetery View of McCrea’s Methodist Cemetery, looking north Integrity: Excellent
Alterations: No known alterations.
Comments: None.
History: Grave markers date back to the nineteenth century; a marker labeled ‘Methodist Church A.D.1882’ may indicate the location of a previous Methodist Church. Association/Themes: - Agricultural settlement - Township settlement Landmark: No.
Associated BHR/CHL: None.
Statement of Significance: N/A
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORM: CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES (CHL) Cultural Heritage Landscape No.: 5
Address: 3730 Concession Road 10 Municipality: Municipality of Clarington County/R.M.: Regional Municipality of Durham Landscape Category: Farm Complex Landscape Features: Nineteenth century dwelling; small barn; agricultural fields
Current Use: Residential/ View of the nineteenth century barn at 3730 Concession Road Agricultural 10 Integrity
Alterations: The dwelling has been reclad and windows and doors have been replaced.
Comments: None.
History: Nineteenth century farm landscape.
Association/Themes: - Agricultural settlement - Township settlement Landmark: No.
Associated BHR/CHL: None.
Statement of Significance: N/A
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORM: CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES (CHL) Cultural Heritage Landscape No.: 6
Address: 3783 Concession Road 10 Municipality: Municipality of Clarington County/R.M.: Regional Municipality of Durham Landscape Category: Farm Complex Landscape Features: Nineteenth century dwelling; small barn; agricultural fields
Current Use: Residential/ View of the dwelling at 3783 Concession Road 10 Agricultural Integrity
Alterations: The dwelling has been reclad in stone pavers. Comments: None.
History: Nineteenth century farm landscape.
Association/Themes: - Agricultural settlement - Township settlement Landmark: No. Associated BHR/CHL: None.
Statement of Significance: N/A
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORM: CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES (CHL) Cultural Heritage Landscape No.: 7
Address: 3828 Concession Road 10 Municipality: Municipality of Clarington County/R.M.: Regional Municipality of Durham Landscape Category: Farm Complex Landscape Features: Nineteenth century dwelling; agricultural fields
Current Use: Residential/ View of the dwelling at 3860 Concession Road 10 Agricultural Integrity: Unknown
Alterations: Unknown. Comments: None.
History: Nineteenth century farm landscape.
Association/Themes: - Agricultural settlement - Township settlement Landmark: No. Associated BHR/CHL: None.
Statement of Significance: N/A
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORM: CULTURAL HERITAGE LANDSCAPES (CHL) Cultural Heritage Landscape No.: 8
Address: 84 Beaucage Road Municipality: Municipality of Clarington County/R.M.: Regional Municipality of Durham Landscape Category: Farm Complex Landscape Features: Nineteenth century dwelling; nineteenth century barns; agricultural fields
Current Use: Residential/ View of the dwelling and farm buildings on Beaucage Road Agricultural Integrity: Unknown
Alterations: Unknown. Comments: None.
History: Nineteenth century farm landscape.
Association/Themes: - Agricultural settlement - Township settlement Landmark: No. Associated BHR/CHL: None.
Statement of Significance: N/A
CULTURAL HERITAGE RESOURCE FORM BUILT HERITAGE RESOURCE (BHR) Built Heritage Resource No.: 1 Address: 3790 Wilcox Road
Municipality: Municipality of Clarington County/R.M.: Regional Municipality of Durham Resource Category: Residential
Resource Type: Dwelling
Current Use: Residential Looking north towards 3790 Wilcox Road Architecture/Engineering: Not associated with any known architecture or engineer Construction Period: Prior to 1930 Storeys: N/A
Structural Material: Unknown Cladding: Horizontal siding
Roof Type: Side gable with Roof Material: Asphalt shingles dormer Style/ Design: Unknown Notable Features: Wrap around porch; central front door
Historical Associations: May be a nineteenth century farmhouse
Landmark: No
Group Value/CHL Association: None
Statement of Significance: N/A
C PREFERRED OPTION
BUS STOP
PRE4
REALIGNED REGIONAL ROAD 20 31+100
31+000
30+900
10+738
PRE3
10+700
30+800
10+600
30+700
PROPOSED MUNICIPAL SERVICE ROAD SW E-1
10+500
30+600
REALIGNED REGIONAL ROAD 20 30+500
10+740 30+500
30+500
MATCH EXISTING 10+400
30+504
11+093 10+800
30+400 North of Study Limit 30+400 Previous design and ROW from 30+400 PROPOSED MUNICIPAL 11+000
Highway 35 Four-Laning 10+300 SERVICE ROAD W-2
PR12
30+300 10+900 Planning and Preliminary Design Study, September 2007 30+300
(W.P. 241-99-00) 10+900
30+300 10+200
30+200
11+000 0
30+200
0
5 1
10+800
= 30+200 R
11+047 MATCH EXISTING STUDY LIMIT
30+100 10+100
30+100 11+100
11+000
10+700 30+100 PR11
PRE2 30+005
30+000 10+000
30+000
11+200 10+600 30+000 10+900
29+900
CONCESSION ROAD 10 29+900 HIGHWAY 35/115
10+500
29+900
0 MTO ROW
0
11+300 2
10+800 1
29+800 =
PR8 MATCH EXISTING R
29+800
9+568.98
10+400
29+800 10+739
9+600 11+400 29+700
10+700 10+700
29+700
A=220
10+300 CONCESSION ROAD 10 29+700
PRE1 9+700
HIGHWAY 35 11+485 29+600
A=190 0 0
10+600 0
11+370 10+600 4 10+689.96 PRE5 10+200 = R 29+600
9+800
11+400
0
4
4 =
R 29+500
MTO ROW
0
0 0
6 10+600 2 10+500
10+100 = 4
= 29+500 R R
10+500 9+900
9+688 A=110 13.46
11+500 0 9+700 0 29+400 0 2 =
A=125 R
10+500
10+000 10+439 29+400 10+400 29+391 10+000
11+600 A=125 10+500 10+400 A=125 9+800
29+300
10+400
GRADING LIMIT 10+100
A=190
10+300 PR5 9+900 11+700 MTO ROW R 0 = 3 5 PROPOSED MUNICIPAL A=220 10+300 0 2 0 R =250 10+200 10+600 10+300 9+900 = =15 R 29+200
SERVICE ROAD W-2 R 11+800 E-N-RAMP R 11+900 = 1 PR4 A=110 5 11+991 0 0 PR3 10+203 PR6 R=12
SWM 9+800
10+200 SWM 10+000 4372m²
11279m² 29+100 A=125 10+700
10+100 PR2
10+100 9+700 A=98 10+200 MATCH EXISTING
29+000R=15
10+100 A=65
10+800
MTO ROW
10+000 0 0
9 5
2 S-N-RAMP
= =
R 10+556 10+000 R R = 4 0
N-S-RAMP 7 1 28+900 5 10+300 1
9+600 = E2 HIGHWAY 10+50035 PR1 R 10+200
9+900 10+900 0 A=65 OLD HIGHWAY 35 0 5 9+900 10+400 1 A=65 =
9+852 R
9+500
28+800
PR10 N-E-RAMP 9+437 11+000 10+300 0+195 9+799 9+800
0 19 R= PR9 0+100 WILCOX ROAD
11+100 0 3 28+700 =
R
10+400 0+000
11+192
28+600
10+500
HIGHWAY 35/115
28+500
10+600 5
BEAUCAGE ROAD 7
5
= R
28+400 10+700
10+800
28+300
MTO ROW
10+900
28+200
11+000
28+100
11+058
MATCH EXISTING
28+000
27+900
27+800 4016-E-0034
HIGHWAY 35 / 115 INTERCHANGE 27+700 EA and PD STUDY SHORTLIST ALTERNATIVES 27+600 ALTERNATIVE 4 - PREFERRED
27+500
100m 0m 100m 200m
27+400
Scale: 1: 2000 STUDY LIMIT